User talk:Cealicuca: Difference between revisions

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33

Blocked from editing:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cealicuca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. I am currently on Holiday in Germany, Pfronten. I am using the WiFi of the host as there are no other means to access internet otherwise.Cealicuca (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2nd unblock request - UNBLOCK request only if the block was at user level, otherwise (if only the IP is blocked) I no longer ask for an unblock:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cealicuca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi - on further investigation it seems this was an autoblock.

As Yamla asked me, this is my IP data:

Your Public IPv4 is: 78.47.131.126 Your IPv6 is: Not Detected Your Local IP is: 192.168.192.52 Location: Falkenstein, SN DE ISP: Hetzner Online AG

Now - i checked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=Cealicuca&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist) and my user is not blocked it seems so in case this block is covering the IP only I actually ask to keep the block in place as you probably have reasons to block it) as long as it will not affect my user once I get back home / work and access Wiki from there. Created this request only to make sure that the user itself is not blocked (I may be paranoid :))).Thank you for your time. Cealicuca (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. If it is an autoblock, please provide the block ID or the exact block message so we can investigate. Huon (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This account is not blocked. Your block log is public record and you can view it here. Interestingly, that IP address also isn't blocked. It could be you hit a block earlier today but have subsequently moved to a new, unblocked, IP address. I'm leaving your unblock request open in case I missed something. --Yamla (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cealicuca. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Swarm ♠ 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Oh, thank you for your effort. A very long and seemingly well thought out post. But I fail to see the point of it - could you clear that up? Cealicuca (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are several hypotheses (or "theories") on the origin of Romanians, none of which are objectively true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Are you sure that is the point? Because I still fail to see the link between your (surely well intended and well thought) wall of text and your last statement. I have to wonder why the suddenness of your... policy reminder. On another note - your opinions... you are of course entitled to it. But should any article reflect the opinions of the editors? 'Cause you just said "Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions".

I'm quite a dogfighter for WP:RULES, otherwise I have no advanced knowledge of the origin of Romanians. And I don't have to have, since every editor has to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES which can be easily and objectively assessed for reliability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're quite just what you are, nothing less nothing more. Under this superficial "rule dogfighter" you know very well what exactly you are.

Please read WP:3RR and try to be constuctive when editing. Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka Please follow Wikipedia's CE policy when editing an article. Please stop making "stealth" modification (that would alter the meaning of the paragraphs) to the already existing content without consulting the other editors in advance. Thank you for your understanding :)Cealicuca (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka Please read the following. Especially "Examples of disruptive editing" / 4.Cealicuca (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cealicuca, The link you have titled "CE policy" is NOT Wikipedia policy.

It is simply an essay (that anyone can create -including users such as yourself who consistently demonstrate failure to grasp, or to even attempt to familiarize yourself with, actual policy) That particular essay has not been "vetted by community" for accuracy. It has no authority, and clearly states it is NOT Wikipedia policy or guideline.

This is the first thing you see. You literally cannot miss it. I didn't bother to read it. It's not policy.

The actual policy is at WP:EP

I don't know what makes you think anyone need consult other editors before making changes -no matter how drastic? Policy states otherwise.

Actual policy "Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles."

"Whether you decide to edit very boldly or discuss carefully on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than debating our personal ideas and beliefs."

If you'd bothered to read WP:NPOV , you'd comprehend that neutral point of view DOES NOT refer to content, it ONLY applies to the wikipedia article in its entirety. Your role as editor, is NEVER to debate different points of view that disagree. Where there is disagreement, it is the responsibility of editors to present that disagreement exists. Whether you "get" it or not, the map  :Borsoka added absolutely meets the WP:RS guidelines. Indeed, it qualifies as a secondary source.

I can assure you, the single wiki you've been waging edit wars on, will exist long after you've exhausted yourself trolling wikipedia. Pimprncess (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So.. wait. A literally new account is created to post some random stuff on my talk page. I feel honored! Of course, it would do this random person a lot of good to actually read what WP:NPOV is before invoking it.Cealicuca (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuserblock-account}}

@DeltaQuad: Hello, may I respectfully ask why was my account blocked? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC) @DeltaQuad: Please, can I get your attention? I would really like to know what exactly you consider as wrongdoing and led to you blocking me. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get the first ping because the ping has to be on the same edit as your signature for it to work. Anyway, this has to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#04_May_2018. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Erm... ok. That... You are not really that straightforward with this - what is the problem exactly? The ANI investigation was closed a long time ago (or at least concerning me that it) and did not check the page since then, but now I see it was re-opened (checked the link you posted)... but with user 123Steller (and only him) as a sockpuppet of Iaasi. I am really confused as to why this is involving me all of the sudden. As a side note, I can provide physical evidence if need be for my (use of) IP(s) if that is the problem. I live and work in a country (say country B) but my "home" country is another one (say country R). I am currently on holiday - or something like that - back home.Cealicuca (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, had to deal with sensitive matters yesterday. Thank you for that information. Could you please drop me a Wikipedia email and we can continue from there? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as I said I'm on holiday (trying to) so I am not that active online myself. Will send a wiki mail ASAP.Cealicuca (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Hi, could you please confirm receiving the email (sent a couple of days ago)? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per our emails, I have unblocked you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Origin of the Romanians Article. Thank you. --Cealicuca (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section here?

Well... see, on a certain Talk Page there's a new provocative post. A non-English message, with a provocative nature. The last time such a message was posted (from an IP that can be traced to a certain location) I was accused of actually posting that message. The message actually hints at me "deleting" it because otherwise I might be associated with it (how weird, why would I post something that I know will not make me look good).

Anyway, the point is that by posting this message I can protect against a certain editor, who's full time job here on Wikipedia is to dispose of people who don't share his ideology by any means necessary - accusing people of sockpuppetry for example is one of his favorite.

Moreover, this certain editor, who of course is not reprimanded by anyone for this behavior - after accusing people, even if those accusation are disproved he still goes on and on and on and reminds everyone how "suspicious" those editors are for... being accused in the first place (he himself accused them, but he uses the term "were accused" - because hey, this editor is smart and wants people to know only that someone was accused of baaaad things - and thus they are "suspicious", not that HE accused those people. Get it? Isn't he smart?).

Anyway, I'm willing to bet a new round will come based on this very interesting message.Cealicuca (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand, just like clockwork, this certain editor was there to "notice" this new message.Cealicuca (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of attacking me, you should wonder why your contributions are a magnet for WP:NPAs which praise you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those messages seem so suspicious to me too... This one, and this one too. I mean, such things must really discredit the editor who is being "praised", right?

I also find suspicious your relentless "pointing out" that me, and another editor, have been accused of wrongdoings while at the same time seemingly ignoring that other editors (involved in the same context) have been accused of the same thing. Like this, or this. But I guess that as long as those other editors have "cleaned up" their talk page (and archived all of those puppetry talks) makes it easier, right?Cealicuca (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, talking about posts that are "magnets" to some questionable editors, you of course never seem to have noticed this, or this.Cealicuca (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, mr. @Tgeorgescu, could you explain to me what WP:MEAT refers to and how would one recognize such accounts? Here, you have the opportunity of actually helping me better myself.Cealicuca (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT means when you call a friend (e.g. from another town) to support your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this quick reply. Hmm... so it's necessary to be someone close to you geographically? And what would the best sign of such thing be (as in sign of WP:MEAT)?Cealicuca (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best argument against WP:MEAT is that two accounts have broad editing histories and have some different interests. It is much more probable that two WP:SPAs are WP:MEAT rather than two established editors with long and different editing histories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - but I was more interesting in what would be the best sign of two or more such accounts.Cealicuca (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is the WP:DUCK test, but it has to be shown collusion, instead of two editors who agree bona fide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. About the things I pointed above - could you explain how come you never had a reaction against those editors, but at the same time seem to single out me instead? I'm not trying to be combative here, actually the other way around.Cealicuca (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements by Filederchest you mentioned are not problematic or disruptive. I did not know that he was a WP:SOCK. For that I would have to have noticed quacking, but I simply (mostly) did not edit in the same articles as him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not problematic? Just to be sure - "politically motivated nationalist NATIVIST continuity theory either." or "This highly politically motivated theory was designed and created to claiming (fake) "historic" rights for their high-medieval era immigrant late-nomadic shepherd ancestors." are OK? For an editor that happens to chime in from time to time on an article dealing with quite sensitive and nationalistic-vulnerable content? Cealicuca (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nativism" is a quite decent explanation, i.e. it is synchronous with present-day historical mainstream (on an international level). "Fake historic rights" is just a Hungarian POV, it could be true, it could be false, anyway for them it is a mainstream POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, should one ignore "politically motivated nationalist NATIVIST continuity theory either." or "This highly politically motivated theory was designed and created to claiming (fake) "historic" rights for their high-medieval era immigrant late-nomadic shepherd ancestors." you might have a point with your non-committal relativism. I do have to wonder though what political (ulterior) motives would the Habsburg Monarchy (including Hungary) might have had in order for them to accept (and, incredible... even let it be taught in schools) until the 1870s. On a closing note, your "Fake historic rights" is just a Hungarian POV, it could be true, it could be false, anyway for them it is a mainstream POV." is most interesting :) As such, I would expect you to treat a statement like "highly politically motivated irredentist immigration theory" with the same measure, right? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is no secret that I consider all those theories just as unproven. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you let everyone know that. Except when you're making sure some certain PoV's are pushed forward as much as possible (by a team effort on the part of some editors) as well as not applying the same "standards" to everyone. Indeed you play a useful role...Cealicuca (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on the talk page of Origin of the Romanians by reverting archived inactive discussions. Continuing to revert will be considered as vandalism. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I shiver... It's striking to see the nerve you have. There is no other vandalism but the vandalism on your part. So far I have given you the benefit of a doubt, but it seems you certainly have different reasons for archiving ongoing debates on the talk page. The fact is that the Restructuring of the written sources is currently referenced on the NPOV Board. The same discussion has also become relevant in the light of what other editors have had to say about the article int this new debate that an editor whom you so much admire that it convinced you to create an account has seen fit to bring to our attention. On the other hand I'm really glad keep on doing things like this. Cealicuca (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Origin of the Romanians. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an Arbitration enforcement block if you had been alerted. There is a page level sanction prohibiting reverts, and you blew it completely. Also having a sense of WP:OWN and personal attacks are not appropriate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@(aka DQ): Hi. May I ask what are the specific reasons for this block?Cealicuca (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it didn't automatically include the link, but it's for your edits to Origin of the Romanians‎‎ as noted in the block log. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@(aka DQ): Hmm... Yes, maybe a cooldown period is in order. Nevertheless, may I also ask why 48 hours when other editors involved got 24 hours? I do feel singled out and I'd like to know why. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors I only caught reverting over the page level sanction once each. You reverted people excessively. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and I hope I'm not missing anything, this would be the chronology:

• on the 26th, there were 2 huge reverts, the last being done by revert by Fakirbakir.
• And then, on the 27th, I asked for a citation for one of the leading statements.
• Immediately TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit reverted me - although it was later accepted as just (talk page, Borsoka: "[...] I also came to the conclusion that the first sentence does not properly present scholarly consensus.").
• I then re-added a part of what was removed in the 26th November revert (previous), as well as a tag to a section that was too reverted on the 26th.
• Then, Borsoka chose to revert me again on the grounds of "duplicate info". Of course it was duplicate info since they bulk reverted all the content added on the 26th (which removed the duplicate content).
• Then Borsoka added a new paragraph here (without actually building consensus or discussing), which was his own excuse for the 26th of November revert (he did a huge revrt before Fakirbakir). Also, as you can see, much of the content is unsourced.
• Since he felt free to do that, I actually moved the sourced content (on the same topic) from another section and replaced his with properly sourced content here. As you can see, in the second paragraph, I kept all content that he sourced properly.
• My next three edits were to add a request for citation (not even remove) unsourced content, sourced some of the content AND asked for him to source some of his own unsourced content, moved relevant content (to what Borsoka added, I wasn't the one to create a whole new leading paragraph with unsourced content).
• Afterwards Borsoka reverted to his previous unsourced content - from which point slowly (see talk page) we started to get closer and closer to a final form.
• of course, at some point, Fakirbakir chooses to revert the whole thing....
• and my last edit was removing unsourced (and otherwise contracdicted by already existing sourced content) added by Borsoka, content that had no relevance whatsoever to the leading paragraph...

So yes, I admit of adding, moving or modifying or even reverting some content. The 26th of November was a huge revert (there was work there a couple of days worth). This (current) so-called warring edit was initiated by adding a whole paragraph (instead of a soured quote) which had more than half of it's content unsourced (you can check, the second paragraph Borsoka added...), as well as pretty biased (evident from the well sourced content already existing in the article that was in contradiction to what Borsoka added.).

Anyway, again, I do not dispute the block and I do think it's good to have some time off and have everyone coold down. But I honestly believe I did not initiate nor kept "alive" this whole thing. I may be wrong, and maybe I just can't see it. But honestly, at least in this case, I believe I wasn't the main culprit. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(aka DQ)I'm stupid or paranoid. I get the feeling all that unsourced content that was added was for me to modify or revert...Cealicuca (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Please see this AE request relating to your participation at Origin of the Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]